TRIAL CHAMBER I ("Trial Chamber") of the International
Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of
International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia
since 1991 ("Tribunal"),

NOTING the "Prosecutor’s Motion to Stay Orders on Provisional
Release Concerning the Accused Jadranko Prlic, Bruno Stojic, Slobodan Praljak,
Milivoj Petkovic, Valentin Coric and Berislav Pusic Pursuant to Rules 65 and
127" filed on 3 August 2004 before the duty judge Inés Mónica Weinberg de Roca
("Duty Judge") for an order to stay the Trial Chamber’s orders on provisional
release of the six accused in the present case made pursuant to Rule 65 of the
Rules of Procedure and Evidence ("Rules") and filed on 2 August 2004 ("Impugned
Orders");

NOTING the "Order on Prosecutor’s Motion to Stay Orders
on Provisional Release" by the Duty Judge filed on 4 August 2004, whereby the
Duty Judge, in accordance with Rule 28(D),1 remitted the
Motion to the Trial Chamber on the ground that "it is not appropriate for the
Duty Judge, acting as a single Judge, to decide this issue and it is more appropriate
for the Trial Chamber to do so";

NOTING that Rule 65 (E) of the Rules provides that the
Prosecutor shall make an application for a stay of a decision by the Trial Chamber
to release an accused "at the time of filing his or her response to the initial
application for provisional release by the accused"; that the Prosecutor did
not apply for a stay of the Impugned Orders at the time of the filing of her
responses to the initial applications for provisional release;2

NOTING that the Prosecutor argues that Rule 65 (E) of
the Rules "does not foreclose a separate application for stay being made following
a decision on an application for provisional release," and that to the extent
that Rule 65 (E) of the Rules might be viewed as providing the "sole manner
in which the Prosecutor may seek a stay," the Prosecutor requests that her motion
for stay "be recognised as validly done, as if the Prosecutor had included such
an application when it filed its original oppositions to release" pursuant to
Rule 127 (A)(ii) of the Rules;3

NOTING that the accused opposed the Motion on 3 and
4 August 2004 on the grounds that the Prosecutor did not show good cause as
required by Rule 127 and that Rule 65(E) is lex specialis and does not
allow the Prosecutor to apply for a stay of the Impugned Orders unless she has
notified the Trial Chamber in her response to the accused’s initial applications
for provisional release;

CONSIDERING that the deadline set forth in Rule 65 may be varied by
a Chamber in accordance to Rule 127 upon good cause being shown;

CONSIDERING that the Trial Chamber is not satisfied
that good cause has been shown in accordance to Rule 127;

CONSIDERING that the Trial Chamber does not exclude
that a stay could exceptionally be granted even when not applied for under Rule
65 (E) of the Rules, but finds that the Prosecution has not shown good cause
for such an exception in this case;

PURSUANT TO Rules 65 and 127 of the Rules;

HEREBYREJECTS the Motion.

Done in both English and French, the English text being authoritative.

1. Rule 28 (D) provides that where a case has
already been assigned to a Trial Chamber, the Duty Judge may act upon an application
made within normal Registry hours, only if the Trial Chamber is unavailable, and
if the Duty Judge is satisfied as to its urgency or that it is otherwise appropriate
to do so in the absence of the Trial Chamber.
2. Motion, para. 8.
3. Motion, paras 6-7.